Stockbridge was a borough by prescription, of which Browne Willis* wrote that ‘they have a charter but could not be informed from whom or when’. The main officials in the town were the bailiff and constable, who were elected annually. Stockbridge was considered to be one of the most venal boroughs in the country. After a by-election in 1689 a bill had been introduced for its disfranchisement, but not passed.
Browne Willis* recorded that Southampton and the surrounding area was ‘a town and county which has many franchises and privileges granted it by several Kings’, and that the manor of the town and county was ‘vested in the mayor and burgesses’. This description may help to explain why the right of election had been disputed between the corporation and the inhabitants paying scot and lot. After a contested by-election in 1689, the Commons decided in favour of the wider franchise, but the corporation could create unlimited numbers of non-resident freemen to swell the electorate.
Before 1689 the electorate at Portsmouth had been confined to the freemen, but in that year the inhabitants at large were allowed to vote and they continued to do so in 1690 and 1695. The strongest interests lay with the governor of the military garrison and the Admiralty through the dock, naval and victualling yards.
Petersfield was a corporation by prescription. Its mayor, bailiff and two aldermen were elected annually at the lord of the manor’s court leet, who potentially therefore had considerable power over the borough. For most of the period, however, the lord of the manor was Ralph Bucknall, whose interference in the borough appears to have been minimal. Although there were probably no contests in our period, the right to vote was disputed between the freeholders in general, who voted in 1659 and 1689, and the burgage holders.
The right of election at Newtown lay with the burgage holders, who were also freemen. In practice this had usually meant that anyone who owned a burgage could automatically become a freeman, but in the reign of Charles ii a new bye-law had been passed limiting the number of freemen to 12, who were thenceforward referred to as aldermen or capital burgesses. This restriction of the franchise enabled the governor of the Isle of Wight to exert considerable influence over elections. The other chief interest lay with the Worsley family of Appuldurcombe.Ibid. 140–2.
In the early 18th century it was estimated that Newport contained about 400 houses and about 2,000 inhabitants, but the right of election in the borough was confined to the corporation, which consisted of 12 aldermen and 12 common councilmen. The mayor, chosen annually from among the aldermen, was the returning officer. Of the three Isle of Wight boroughs Newport was the one most closely under the control of the governor of the island, who could always nominate one and frequently both Members.Bodl. Willis 48, f. 414; HMC Astley, 77.
Lymington was a borough by prescription, its officers consisting of a mayor, recorder, steward, town clerk and, in theory, an unlimited number of burgesses, although in practice the numbers did not reach above about 70. In this period the controlling interest was exercised by the Burrards of Walhampton.
Andover’s charter of 1599 specified that the corporation would include a bailiff, a steward, ten aldermen or approved men and 12 common councilmen or freemen. By a decision of the House in 1689 the right of election was confined to these 24 members of the corporation rather than the freemen in general. The bailiff acted as returning officer and considerable influence for one seat could be exercised by the steward, who was elected by the corporation.
Stockbridge was a venal borough. In 1754 Robert Henley (later Lord Northington) managed the election, at least for one seat (of George Hay). But on 23 Nov. 1756, over Hay’s re-election, Henry Fox sent the following account of Stockbridge to the Duke of Bedford:Bedford mss 32, f. 107.
Whitchurch was a proprietary borough, but its proprietors changed. About 1750 its patrons were Lord Portsmouth and John Selwyn. On Selwyn’s death in 1751 his interest passed to his son-in-law, Thomas Townshend; and from 1754 to 1774 one Member was chosen by Townshend and the other by Portsmouth. In 1774 and 1780 Thomas Townshend jun. (later Lord Sidney) and his nephew Lord Midleton were returned and Midleton held his seat after 1784, although by then he and Sidney were politically opposed.
